Source of the post most claim that obviously the Sun must be visible from space as it is clearly visible from Earth. That is an assumption, science does not, or should not, be based on assumptions. And I can not be expected to prove the Sun is NOT visible from deep space, that also is not how science is done, I can not prove a negative. It is up to those who claim it is visible to PROVE it in a scientifically acceptable manner. Get on with it.

The fact is, there are photos taken from cameras aboard the ISS of the Sun that someone also linked. Are you implying that ISS is orbiting into the atmosphere? No, don't answer that.

Your "claims" have to be proved, my friend, the fact you reject data with "claims" doesn't make them disappear. And you should define precisely your own terms of "scientifically acceptable manner", since you're playing with words, otherwise it's clear that everything they will throw at you will have to pass your unfathomable and unexplained judgement, which is not how science works.Take your time.

PS:Every conceivable claim has been made in human history, and in Internet you can find at least 10 people that will support every single unimaginable argument. Try harder.

Source of the post And I can not be expected to prove the Sun is NOT visible from deep space, that also is not how science is done, I can not prove a negative.

You can potentially approach 100% confidence by repeated experimental tests.

How to do science: Put a camera in space. Aim it at where the Sun is. Take a photograph with the settings expected for what would expose the film or sensor with sunlight under the null hypothesis (that your hypothesis is wrong and the Sun is visible). Review the image. If the Sun is not visible in the image, then either the Sun is not visible in space, or something went wrong with your experiment. Have other people repeat your experiment and check your findings. If lots of other experiments confirm the same thing, then your finding gains credibility.

Here is a photograph of the Sun taken from above the atmosphere. You predict this image does not exist. It does exist. Your hypothesis is wrong.

Your conjecture is that sunlight is rendered visible by a mystical conversion process of UV to visible wavelengths by atmospheres.

This conjecture explicitly predicts (in violation of Planck's Law) that the spectrum of sunlight in space should be essentially zero over visible wavelengths, and suddenly rise up in intensity over the UV.

Furthermore, it predicts as a consequence of this proposed conversion process that if we compare the solar spectrum taken from the surface with that taken from space, we should find that the intensity of sunlight over visible wavelengths should greater at the surface than at space. As described earlier, intensity of visible light should decrease with altitude because less of the UV will have been converted to visible.

What we observe:

Reality is the opposite of these predictions. The sun does emit essentially blackbody radiation described by Planck's Law, and the intensity of visible sunlight is greater at the top of the atmosphere than at the surface.

Watsisname, sadly when it comes to conspiracies one can just argue that you faked it, and not to get into a religious debate but going to say it anyway, you can make the same claims towards any belief.

Anything you put forward to show someone that their conspiracy or belief is wrong can be shot down by another belief. Just tonight I had someone claiming that NASA uses digital manipulation in real time on the HDEV for the ISS, so the computer is trained to recognize the things attached to the ISS, cut off the disk of the Earth, and then curve the surface to look like a sphere. All while at the same time someone else was claiming they digitally restore the ISS and Soyuz while keeping the rest distorted by a fish eye.

Even if you show someone proof they are wrong, it doesn't matter. I gave up arguing with conspiracies a long time ago because all it ever did, especially with my background in science, was give people who believe in those conspiracies and others who were curious a sense that maybe it held something of value. By trying to help educate people you end up doing more harm and giving a voice to something that doesn't need it. The people who are believing flat Earth now are believing it because real believers were given a platform and then acknowledged instead of being ignored.

Every debate between religious believers and science promoters seems to just convince people that there is a debate, when in reality there is none and one side is just factually wrong.

Do you guys think that people actually believe these things or do they just say they do to be contrary or troll or what not?

I mean some "conspiracies" might be true- I've read a great deal about the JFK assassination and there seems to be credible evidence of more than one shooter (also, on Face the Nation a former CIA agent came forward and said they knew about Oswald planning the assassination with Castro sympathizers when he was down in Mexico but didn't take the threat seriously.)

A-L-E-X, conspiracies are real, they happen all the time, governments and businesses try to hide and cover stuff up. There are dozens of cases where governments and businesses have even invented conspiracies to redirect attention somewhere else.

When it comes to uncovering the truth it is best to approach things with an open mind, but as the old saying goes not so open that your brain falls out.

NASA could very well be covering something up. Given the number of people who work at NASA/ESA/Roscosmos, companies involved, and how many leaks have already happened it is highly unlikely anything like aliens, flat Earth, hollow Earth, or similar conspiracies are legit. The amount of people who would benefit from exposing such conspiracies far outweigh any negative consequences for those actions, any of the major conspiracies would be world changing events and whoever breaks the news would go down in history.

We live in an amazing universe and we also live in a mediocre day to day life, some people just get hooked on the sense of uncovering something even when it isn't true. Science is a tool for sorting the false claims from the legit claims, humans aren't perfect and mistakes are made, but that doesn't usually mean there is a conspiracy to hide the truth.

DoctorOfSpace, yeah, I have no expectations that a person who is deeply into conspiracy-thinking will be compelled to reflect on and correct their thinking when presented with data. Sometimes they do but it's rare. What I do this for is not so much in the hopes of getting them to reflect on their ideas as to demonstrate for the general reader how to cut to the heart of a theory and actually test it.

It's very easy when presented with a conspiracy theory to get bogged down in arguments of the plausibility of such a conspiracy actually existing, but in cases like these when the theory does make testable predictions, I find that is the best way to approach them. I like these theories the best because you can show that it is possible to substantiate or reject them, which I think is a good pedagogical exercise in the scientific method.

Source of the post I like these theories the best because you can show that it is possible to substantiate or reject them, which I think is a good pedagogical exercise in the scientific method.

That can be fun, but as I have learned from the past couple ghost hunts I have gone on people who are deeply ingrained in their belief system will outright reject the evidence.

To some people it just seems more plausible that it is a ghost clicking a flashlight together and not the provable heat exchange, or that NASA computer generates false images of Earth rather than millions of dollars being spent on space probes, telescopes, and world wide computer networks sharing this data freely.

The fact is, there are photos taken from cameras aboard the ISS of the Sun that someone also linked. Are you implying that ISS is orbiting into the atmosphere? No, don't answer that

.

I will answer that. Photos from the ISS taken while looking TOWARDS Earth are no proof that the Sun is visible from cislunar space. From the Cupola they can ONLY have a line of sight that looks through Earths atmospherem, the geometry is simple. And yes, the ISS is orbiting withing the atmopsphere, much thinner up there, but sufficient if my theory is correct that when looking through that deep column of it towards the stars from the ISS, enough for the shorter, invisible light to be converted to visible. I have not invented any new scientific process here, only applied known sciece to atmosoheric processes. Even Hubble is still within the thermosphere, lots of matter still up there, even out to 10,000 km there is still matter present.The only known view away from Earth from the US part of the ISS is from the node 2 Zenith porthole, but I can only find one view taken from it, and there is no EXIF data.https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat ... 104149.jpgThe dots in the image are not stars.http://nova.astrometry.net/status/863455

What is visible from the Russian or Japanese modules is not known, Zvezda has 16 windows, but you never hear about them, and nothing about astrophotography/astronomy from them.And what about putting a camera on one of those geostationary satellites to find out what is visible? What a waste when they have high speed communications availability? There was a camera facing Earth, but NASA took over the channel and now shows us boring images of clouds and blue airglow..http://about.dish.com/press-release/pro ... th-channelThe videos have been removed though there are still some on Youtube.

XBrain130

Also, I think I see that you won't trust any kind of camera, but only verbal recollection of human beings. Alright then, we'll have to wait until the famous expedition to Mars to settle this, I guess.

Or the Moon, if they ever allow civilians up there. With the snsitive video cameras maybe we will see this?http://www3.telus.net/myworld/desolation2.jpgAnyone thinking of going to Mars should go out and take a good look at the stars before the go, they will never see them looking like so bright and clear again, and maybe never. The Curiosity camera has a tough time seeing them at all, not enough atmosphere to give a view like we get.

Mosfet

"And you should define precisely your own terms of "scientifically acceptable manner"

Easy enough. For the stars, an off-the-shelf camera, photos taken from cislunar space, EXIF data provided. For the Sun, same thing but with a Neutral Density filter. I expect something like this:https://mcalisterium.files.wordpress.co ... edit-2.jpg200 mm lens ISO 50 f/13 1/8000 sec 10 stop ND filter 12:03 p.m.I'd also accept an image from the ISS, their noon time. The Sun would be white according to NASA.

Source of the post The Curiosity camera has a tough time seeing them at all, not enough atmosphere to give a view like we get.

Hey, you know that pesky thing called exposure which was recently implemented in SE? It makes it so that if you want to see stars, you have to oversaturate everything else, which makes it pretty useless if you want to photograph that "everything else", like stuff on Mars' surface. You're right about the "clear" bit, but that's becasue the air is full of pulverized rust.

I'm pretty sure it's more of a "it costs a *** of money to throw someone there AND bring them back alive" problem.Ever heard of SpaceX? You'd think NASA (becasue it's always NASA, amirite?) would have shot them down long ago if they were covering up something.

I'll make you know that an off-the-shelf camcorder is what it took for someone to conclude that the Moon is an hologram.Mainstream consumer cameras don't have the power to resolve the point-like stars, even amateur astronomers have to get more costly professional ones that are made for that purpose.

This is the most absurd conspiracy theory I've ever heard. What's next? The moon really is made of green cheese? I suppose it's a good thing the moon doesn't have an atmosphere or this guy's sun model would melt it!

So I guess we'll wait long time to see the maths or numbers supporting your claims on how electromagnetism and thermodynamics are wrong, ignoring hundreds of years worth of experimental data, just because you don't trust NASA and the rest of the world doesn't exist. Still playing with words.

Source of the post And yes, the ISS is orbiting withing the atmopsphere, much thinner up there, but sufficient if my theory is correct that when looking through that deep column of it towards the stars from the ISS, enough for the shorter, invisible light to be converted to visible

Then present your mathematical model which relates column density to the conversion of light to different wavelengths. Your model should be able to predict exactly what spectrum should result from a given initial spectrum as a function of column density.

GaryN wrote:

Source of the post I have not invented any new scientific process here, only applied known sciece to atmosoheric processes.

Please name exactly what principles of known science you are applying to exactly what atmospheric processes.